ozarque ([info]ozarque) wrote,
@ 2005-12-14 17:31:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Recommended link.....
If you haven't yet read Dan Seligman's article "Gapology 101" in the December 12, 2005 issue of Forbes, you can read it at http://www.blackenterprise.com/yb/ybopen.asp?section=ybng&story_id=86216878&ID=blackenterprise . Seligman's thesis is perfectly straightforward: The achievement gap between privileged students and poor ones cannot be closed; it's hopeless to try. The poor and disadvantaged, he tells us, "have less cognitive ability than those from higher-status families."


(Post a new comment)


[info]mark_argent
2005-12-14 05:44 pm UTC (link)
Now, I'm just a lowly college dropout, but isn't this article a case of using one's thesis to prove the argument?

(Reply to this)


[info]conuly
2005-12-14 05:46 pm UTC (link)
Well, that's certainly a convenient belief!

(Reply to this)


[info]psongster
2005-12-14 06:04 pm UTC (link)
This seems related to me to your observations about dietary habits in poor Ozark families (which are rather similar to dietary habits I observed in poor urban New Jersey families).

I think it is possible that there are real biological differences (on average, of course!) between those who grow up poor and those who grow up affluent. There's nutrition and lead exposure to begin with, plus the tendency of pollution-producing industries to be located near poor communities. And what does stress do to a developing brain?

So I agree with those who say the schools can't do everything. It is true, I think, that people have different mental capabilities, and some people are poor because they have low mental capabilities.

Don't just jump on me here, folks -- I come from a comfortably middle-class family, but my uncle is mentally retarded because of a birth injury, and the best education my grandparents could buy couldn't teach him long division. He has managed to hold down a job cleaning animal cages at a vet's, but two of his siblings are college professors, and he has earned a lot less in his life than they have. Sometime intelligence really is the issue.

I don't agree that these biological dimensions mean nothing can be done -- but it is a multi-generational process. If we give all kids good nutrition and a clean environment, including prenatally, then we'll figure out what the real connections between genetics and intelligence are -- and not until then. And there will always be the occasional unfortunate individuals like my uncle.

But too often the idea that everyone can achieve equally is used to trash the schools, especially public schools. And that's just plain unfair.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]beckyzoole
2005-12-14 07:13 pm UTC (link)
I think that it's ridiculous to say that everyone is born with the same abilities. Anyone who has had more than one child knows that each and every newborn infant has a different personalities, its own level of awareness, and develops at its own pace.

BUT, environment is what allows each person to fully develop to the limits of their potential.

People whose brain is damaged, or who got a bad genetic roll of the dice, will never function on an average level. But an excellent environment will help them function at their highest possible level. If your uncle had not had such good parents, he might be institutionalized instead of working at the vet's office.

An average person given an ideal environment will end up average. And average is not bad -- face it, 75% of us are average! But an average person given sub-par prenatal nutrition, poor education, little opportunity, and a culture that devalues learning for that individual, will end up below average.

Someone who inherited extra neurons or whatever it is that makes a brain function at higher speed, will never achieve their potential if that brain is damaged by poor nutrition, pollutants, or abuse. They will not achieve their potential if they are kept ignorant, or not given the opportunity to achieve. They might end up being average -- again, not bad, just... not what they could have been.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bimmer1200
2005-12-14 07:38 pm UTC (link)
I think there is one factor you aren't including and that is, for lack of a better word; self-discipline. Genetics can be a gift or a curse, just as one's environment can be a gift or a curse. But there is a capacity within a person to take that with which they are born, and the situation in which they grew up and wring something better from it. There are those with all the advantages, who fail to use them and wind up failing. And there are those with every disadvantage who succeed spectacularly.

Save those with extreme mental handicaps, one's destiny is no more written in one's genetic heritage or one's circumstances of birth than it is written in the stars.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]beckyzoole, 2005-12-14 07:50 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]bimmer1200, 2005-12-14 08:17 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]beckyzoole, 2005-12-14 09:30 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]beckyzoole, 2005-12-14 07:52 pm UTC (Expand)
Response to psongster....
[info]ozarque
2005-12-15 02:15 pm UTC (link)
I agree that the issue is related to the dietary differences. Tightly linked to it, in fact, although Seligman doesn't give that aspect of the problem so much as a word.

If you wanted to create a permanent underclass, the simplest and quickest way to do that would be to make certain that pregnant women and kids younger than two never got proper food and drink. That would essentially guarantee it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kelathefinn
2005-12-14 06:14 pm UTC (link)
He is quite correct, as far as he goes. His rhetoric is flawless. However. The thing to do, the gap we need to close, is between rich and poor. It can be done. All it takes is political will. Inclusive education, with EVERYONE in the same classroom, regardless of 'cognitive ability' (and we all know IQ tests are biased to white, middle-class kids), race, gender, physical abilities, etc. is the way to go. I've just finished editing a book that shows quite conclusively that eliminating poverty would result in better learning. The problem folks, is that MOST of the world's children aren't even in SCHOOL. Check out the UN's Millennium Development Goals.
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]heyfoureyes
2005-12-14 06:19 pm UTC (link)
amazingly, my uneducated, dirt-poor grandparents -- the most high-achieving one was a plumber -- have given birth to teachers, engineers, computer programmers, and architects. these relatives were born in the u.s. and Puerto Rico in the 50's, and achieved a leap of status due to the educational opportunity and economic health available in their youths.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kelathefinn
2005-12-14 06:24 pm UTC (link)
Precisely what I was talking about. We have to get kids in school - educational opportunity is the key - and we have to make it possible for the families to be well-off enough to allow the kids to go to school, and we have to get the infrastructure built. We're working on it. Some of us.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]bat_cheva
2005-12-14 06:57 pm UTC (link)
So you think that the smarter kids should sit in a class with the ones who have problems, or are even only average, bored out of their skulls listening to stuff they already know, never learning anything new because the teacher has to repeat material over and over and over again so everyone else can get it?

How is that going to help anyone?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]janet_coburn
2005-12-14 07:35 pm UTC (link)
If the students didn't learn the thing the first three or five or seventeen times the teacher repeated the material, why does he or she imagine that repeating it again will magically work the next time?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]beckyzoole, 2005-12-14 07:54 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]kelathefinn
2005-12-14 07:40 pm UTC (link)
Please see my reply below. Separate support classes for everyone. Individual instruction, not classroom repetition by rote. Learning by DOING, not 'chalk and talk' but problem-solving. Everyone at their own pace.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]aerope
2005-12-14 09:53 pm UTC (link)
that's what i did in high school, and i would say it helped. it was frustrating, but it also made me seek out more independent learning, and more importantly, it gave me a sense of respect and ability to see value in others that i see missing in a lot of my acquaintances at a selective college. they were always separated into honors classes or boarding schools, and they often seem to have a sense of entitlement that people should recognize how brilliant they are and treat them accordingly. (granted, they were more prepared for a college workload than me at the beginning of my first year, but by the end of first semester i had caught up academically, so i don't think that's as big an issue as the worldview differences.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Check out the study done in Wake County, NC
[info]mouseworks
2005-12-15 12:00 pm UTC (link)
The school system made a concerted effort to not have more than 25% poor kids in any given school, and all the kids did fine.

One suggestion a friend made was to put the smarter kids to use as assistant teachers. One on one is always better.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]still_asking, 2005-12-16 01:01 am UTC (Expand)

[info]beckyzoole
2005-12-14 07:17 pm UTC (link)
[info]bat_cheva has a good point. Inclusive education tends to pull everybody to the average... including the talented students who could do much better than average, if only they were allowed to.

In sports, we have no problem with having neighborhood leagues for average players to have fun, as well as professional leagues that only the most talented and motivated can play in. Why not do the same with education?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]kelathefinn, 2005-12-14 07:37 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]bimmer1200, 2005-12-14 08:04 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]beckyzoole, 2005-12-14 08:27 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]bimmer1200, 2005-12-14 08:46 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-12-14 09:20 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-12-14 09:22 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]neonchameleon, 2005-12-15 11:50 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]beckyzoole, 2005-12-14 08:31 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]kelathefinn, 2005-12-14 08:52 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]bimmer1200, 2005-12-14 09:11 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]conuly, 2005-12-14 11:58 pm UTC (Expand)
About Finland - (Anonymous), 2006-01-05 01:50 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]beckyzoole, 2005-12-14 08:10 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]kelathefinn, 2005-12-14 08:38 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]carbonelle, 2005-12-15 04:03 am UTC (Expand)
Immigrants in Finland - [info]kelathefinn, 2005-12-15 08:29 am UTC (Expand)

[info]orangemike
2005-12-14 06:20 pm UTC (link)
Typical "reasoning" process of a right-winger (and some of the stupider leftists as well): there are differences between these two broad classifications, therefore there is nothing of value in trying to bring persons from class A into class B.

Education is something done by and with individual human beings, some of whom will benefit more than others. (And even those who fetishize measurable IQ mostly admit that it's not all heritable.) His argument is that the poor deserve to be poor, and it's a waste of effort to try to educate us 'cuz we're jist so ignernt an' dum!

(Reply to this)


[info]mamadeb
2005-12-14 06:24 pm UTC (link)
I'm wondering here - does he have cause and effect mixed up? Or is it all related. Are they poor and disadvantaged because they're less intelligent, or are they less intelligent because they're poor and disadvantaged?

And this is vicious - This person is less intelligent because he grew up poor and disadvantaged, and because of that, his children will be poor and disadvantaged, and therefore less intelligent.

This would tie into so many things - poor nutrition, lack of literacy and stimulation for the kids, poor housing (leading to asthma and other respiratory illnesses, which could affect cognition and will also lead to missing school), even lack of hope to improve, so that the parents don't think they can do anything anyway. And...yeah.

There have to be other factors involved besides sheer poverty, though.

(Reply to this)


[info]arcticturtle
2005-12-14 06:27 pm UTC (link)
One month ago, our Godson moved from living with his single, unstable, underavailable, underachieving mother. Now he lives with us, two hyper-enthusiastic MIT alumnae who are pouring energy into his academics.

His school achievement - can you believe this? - is shooting upward.

Apparently we invented novel retroviral DNA injection technology to increase his inherent cognitive ability. Because, after all, habits and mindsets that are acquired from his environment have nothing to do with it.

It is true that it would be really hard for schools, alone, to improve the overall environment. The school forms part of the child's environment, but only part. That only speaks to the whole-family, whole-community effect; it either means that entire families and communities should be abandoned to underachievement, or that education has to become an effort that involves addressing the parents and the community along with the children.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Involving the community
[info]kelathefinn
2005-12-14 08:43 pm UTC (link)
I absolutely agree one-hundred percent. When we work in Finland in a bilateral programme to build schools in a developing country, the first thing that happens is that we involve the entire community in the planning process. If the community does not feel they 'own' the school, then the school is unlikely to prove sustainable. As I understand it, in the USA, schools are financed by VOTE of the entire community? As budgets separate from taxes? It strikes me that, if that is the case, then only parents with children actually in the schools will vote in favour of a school bond, UNLESS the entire community has come to feel that they 'own' the school. It's a serious problem.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Involving the community - [info]arcticturtle, 2005-12-14 09:13 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Involving the community - [info]bimmer1200, 2005-12-14 09:23 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Involving the community - [info]kelathefinn, 2005-12-15 08:33 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Involving the community - [info]beckyzoole, 2005-12-15 08:00 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]neonchameleon
2005-12-14 06:36 pm UTC (link)
*sigh*

Like many proposals, there are two versions - a sensible moderate one and an extreme one which may be argued against for the purpose of points scoring without (quite) creating a strawman argument. What he is arguing is the latter.

The achievement gap probably can't be closed completely - see your earlier post on nutrition and then work out who has the money to afford good teachers... Nevertheless, narrowing (as opposed to ending) the achievement gap by providing either an approximately equal standard of teaching across the board or filtering the spare where it will have most benefit is a laudable goal and one worth trying for.

(Reply to this)


[info]starcat_jewel
2005-12-14 06:50 pm UTC (link)
This kind of argument always reminds me of a line from an Asimov story:

"He had begun to notice that those who advocated abandoning the hungry were all themselves well-fed."

Me, I think this guy is just too goddamn LAZY to want to do the work.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]carbonelle
2005-12-15 04:05 am UTC (link)
"He had begun to notice that those who advocated abandoning the hungry were all themselves well-fed".

Yes. Well, advocates generally have a lot of free time on their hands, which is not usually the case for those who find it a struggle to stay fed.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dsgood
2005-12-14 08:23 pm UTC (link)
Ah, yes. This explains why the Jews in Eastern Europe were so much less literate than the nobility.

And it explains why upper-status families in the US have never lost that status.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]starcat_jewel
2005-12-14 08:26 pm UTC (link)
And why no one in America has ever risen from the lower classes to the ranks of the well-off.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Meow!
[info]idiotgrrl
2005-12-15 01:38 pm UTC (link)
Sure, they're stupid. Too stupid to buy into his theories is what he means. Snork...

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…